In this article I discuss what motivated reasoning research tells us about the prospects for deliberative democracy. In section (I) I introduce the results of several political psychology studies examining the problematic affective and cognitive processing of political information by individuals in non-deliberative, experimental environments. This is useful because these studies are often neglected in political philosophy literature. Section (II) has three stages. First (IIi), I sketch how the study results from section (I) question the practical viability of deliberative democracy. (...) Second (IIii), I briefly present the results of three empirical studies of political deliberation that can be interpreted to counter the findings of the studies in section (I). Third (IIiii), I show why this is a misinterpretation and that the study results from section (I) mean that it is implausible that sites of political deliberation would naturally emerge from the wide public sphere and coalesce into institutionalized forms of the practice such that deliberative democracy can satisfy its raison d’être. Finally, in section (III) I conclude that viable conceptions of deliberative democracy should be limited to narrower aims. (shrink)

This interdisciplinary paper identifies principles of an affluent country (im)migration policy that avoids: (1) the positivist inclusion/exclusion mechanism of liberalism and communitarianism; and (2) the idealism of most cosmopolitan (im)migration theories. First, I: (a) critique the failure of liberalism and communitarianism to consider (im)migration under distributive justice; and (b) present cosmopolitan (im)migration approaches as a promising alternative. This paper’s central claim is that cosmopolitan (im)migration theory can determine normative shortcomings in (im)migration policy by coupling elements of Frankfurt School methodology to (...) case studies of (im)migration regimes. Lastly, I apply this analytical procedure to recent special changes in Spanish and UK immigration law. (shrink)

This paper presents the history of the Frankfurt School’s inclusion of normative concerns in social science research programs during the period 1930-1955. After examining the relevant methodology, I present a model of how such a program could look today. I argue that such an approach is both valuable to contemporary social science programs and overlooked by current philosophers and social scientists.

This paper analyzes the proposed use of combinatorial derivatives markets for event prediction, especially for catastrophic events such as terrorism, war, or political assasination. Following a presentation of the philosophical principles underlying these politico-economic tools, I examine case studies (U.S. DoD proposals) that evaluate their advantages and disadvantages in terms of both efficacy and moral considerations. I conclude that these markets are both fatally flawed due to internal conceptual contradictions and morally problematic.